- (1.) A writ in the nature of certiorari is prayed for to quash the recommendations of the Screening Committee dated 17.06.1997 (Annexure P7), vide which the petitioner was not found eligible or entitled for allotment of a built up booth, order dated 28.12.1998 (Annexure P9), rendered by the Assistant Estate Officer (exercising the powers of Estate Officer, UT, Chandigarh), affirming the aforesaid recommendations as also the order dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure P10), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against both i.e. recommendations and the order dated 28.12.1998, was also dismissed.
(2.) In brief, the case set out by the petitioner is that he has been plying a handcart (Rehri) in Sector 20D, Chandigarh, for the last about 33 years and selling confectionary items. He was issued a cart licence in the year 1973-74, which was renewed from time to time. The petitioner was allotted a Thara site in Sector 20D, Chandigarh in the year 1978. And, was also issued a licence No.1840/registration No.1907 by the Licensing Officer, UT, Chandigarh for running the said business at the aforesaid site. Claim of the petitioner for allotment of built up booth on lease and hire purchase basis in Chandigarh under the "Allotment/Transfer of built up booths in any Sector on Lease/Hire Purchase basis in Chandigarh, Rules, 1991" was considered by the Screening Committee, constituted by the Chandigarh Administration for the scrutiny of claims and determining of eligibility of beneficiaries of Rehri Market of Sectors 20C, 20D and 47C, Chandigarh. However, vide its recommendation dated 17.06.1997 (Annexure P7), the Screening Committee did not find the petitioner eligible or entitled for allotment, for he was neither found conducting any business during the survey conducted in the year 1995 nor led any cogent evidence to substantiate his claim. So much so, the other handcart holders (Rehriwalas) of Rehri Market, Sector 20D, Chandigarh, who were present before the Screening Committee and consulted in this regard, did not acknowledge the petitioner as a genuine claimant of the said Rehri Market. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh (respondent No.1). However, the said appeal was not found to be maintainable, but as it was pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that he be afforded yet another opportunity to establish his claim, to avert any injustice to the petitioner, vide order dated 10.10.1997 (Annexure P8), the Estate Officer was directed to re-examine the claim of the petitioner. The operative part of the said order reads as thus: "6. Before parting with the matter, it may be noted that counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that they may be given a chance to establish their claim one more time. This is not really warranted, but taking a sympathetic view of the matter, it is directed that the Estate Officer may look into the appellant's claim one more time so as to ensure that no injustice is caused to the appellant. This would not mean that the appellant is to be heard all over again by the Screening Committee, but only that his file may be scrutinized to see that there is no patent irregularity."
(3.) Resultantly, the matter was re-examined by respondent No.2 and once again, claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 28.12.1998 (Annexure P9). As even an appeal preferred against the said order failed and was dismissed on 06.04.2015 (Annexure P10) being grossly barred by time, by the Chief Administrator, UT, Chandigarh (respondent No.1), the petitioner is before this court. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book.;